Greenpeace Report: Dollars vs. Democracy

Introduction and Key Findings

A healthy democracy is a precondition for a healthy environment. When everyone’s vote counts and when everyone’s constitutionally-guaranteed right to peacefully protest is protected, our government becomes more accountable and capable of meeting the demand for racial justice and enacting solutions to the rapidly accelerating climate crisis.

Congress is currently presented with the opportunity to pass two bills that would restore, strengthen, and protect our freedom to vote, make sure average people have a better chance of being heard by preventing billionaires from buying our elections, and ensure we can elect leaders who govern in our interests: The For The People Act (H.R. 1/S. 1) and The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 4).

Yet today, conservative state lawmakers across the country are attempting to block the path to progress by forcing through legislation designed to criminalize and squash public protests and disenfranchise voters — especially voters of color.

Unhappy with the outcome of the 2020 election and following the record-breaking turnout among Black voters in the Senate runoff election in Georgia, extremist state lawmakers first began to introduce a barrage of anti-voter laws in Georgia and a few other states. But soon these bills spread across the country. As of late March, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, at least 361 anti-voter bills had been introduced in 47 states.^[1]

At the same time, extremist lawmakers are also busy drafting anti-protest bills with new draconian provisions designed to criminalize and stifle protests. Over 80 anti-protest bills have been introduced in 34 states so far this year — more than twice the number in any previous year.^[2]

The introduction of these anti-protest bills started to accelerate noticeably in 2017. The legislation came in response to protests led by the Black Lives Matter movement and the resistance to the Dakota Access pipeline led by Indigenous land and water protectors from the Standing Rock Reservation.^[3]

It’s no surprise that these anti-protest bills are designed primarily against these two movements since the struggles for climate justice and racial justice go hand-in-hand; both are led by communities of color that have borne a disproportionate share of corporate harm and police brutality.

Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities began organizing the movement for environmental justice decades ago, having been most heavily impacted by pollution and illnesses associated with fossil fuel extraction and use, petrochemical production, and waste disposal operations.^[4] Many Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities are now also on the front lines of the climate crisis, trying to survive extreme weather events and other impacts that will soon affect everyone.^[5]

Given these realities, it’s no surprise that opinion polls have repeatedly found that Latinx and Black communities are more likely to be alarmed and concerned about global warming than white people, who are more likely to be doubtful or dismissive.^[6]

This year, demands for racial justice and climate justice have also begun to expose the relationship between polluters opposed to government action on climate change and the recent racist attacks on democracy. After white supremacists stormed the Capitol during the failed insurrection of January 6th, it was revealed that fossil fuel companies and other corporations and conservative groups contributed to groups that helped organize and promote the “Stop the Steal” rallies that led to the siege of the Capitol.^[7] Later on January 6, when Congress reconvened, the “insurrection caucus” that refused to certify the 2020 election results was led by many members who have taken exorbitant amounts of money from the fossil fuel industry.^[8] According to a recent analysis by the Center for American Progress, 82 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and six U.S. Senators are both climate deniers and members of the “insurrection caucus” — those who denied the certified results of the 2020 general election, supporting President Trump’s attempt to overturn the election.^[9] Many of these same politicians have also spent years undermining voting rights and campaign finance reform, opening the doors to the plutocrats who have polluted our politics as much as they have contaminated our air, water, and land.^[10]

Republican politicians in Georgia, Texas, Arizona and other states began introducing legislation directly designed to quash the election rules and policies that led to an unprecedented voter turnout.

Soon national attention was drawn towards Georgia, where state legislators passed a new law signed by Governor Kemp, which includes provisions that will have the effect of making it more difficult for many voters to participate in upcoming elections, particularly Black voters and others that turned out in unprecedented numbers during the January Senate runoff races.

Voting rights groups including the New Georgia Project, Fair Fight, Black Voters Matter, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People immediately began to respond, organizing legal challenges and calling out the companies that supported the sponsors of these bills, including Coca-Cola, Delta, Home Depot and Aflac.^[11]

As other state 2021 legislative sessions began, Greenpeace investigated corporate contributions to other state anti-voter bills along with new and expanded anti-protest legislation. The results of that research are discussed below, and presented in the appendices to this brief report.^[12]

Key Findings include:

Dozens of state legislators are driving a two-pronged attack on democracy, sponsoring both anti-voter and anti-protest bills.

44 state legislators sponsored at least one anti-protest bill and one anti-voter bill in the past year.^[13]

Many companies back state legislators who sponsored both anti-voter and anti-protest bills.

Of the top 100 corporate donors to state lawmakers who sponsored anti-voter bills, 53 were also among the 100 top corporate donors to anti-protest bill sponsors.

Five of 10 companies that donated the most to sponsors of state anti-voter legislation — AT&T, Comcast, RAI Services, Phillip Morris/Altria and UnitedHealth Group — also rank among the top 10 corporate donors to the sponsors of state anti-protest bills.

Fossil Fuel companies stand out among companies backing anti-protest legislation.

The 10 companies that invested the most in lobbying for anti-protest bills since 2017 are all fossil fuel companies.

A growing number of companies have spoken out in defense of democracy and voting rights. Yet many of these same companies contributed to legislators sponsoring state anti-voter or anti-protest bills during their most recent election campaigns.

On April 14, well over 100 companies endorsed “We Stand for Democracy,” a statement of clear opposition to “any discriminatory legislation or measures that restrict or prevent any eligible voter from having an equal and fair opportunity to cast a ballot.”^[14] We commend them for doing so.

Unfortunately, this was after at least 12 of these companies contributed to the sponsors of 43 state anti-voter bills analyzed: Amazon, American Express, Bank of America, Facebook, Ford, General Motors, HP, J&J, Merck, Microsoft, United Airlines, and Wells Fargo.^[15] We urge these and other companies to adopt the policy of immediately ceasing any support to politicians that sponsor or vote for state anti-voter legislation.

Companies that ceased PAC contributions to members of Congress who refused to certify the 2020 election contributed to groups that promoted the “Stop the Steal” rally. Many are also sponsors of state anti-voter legislation introduced after January 6.

In the wake of the insurrection, at least 130 companies “paused” PAC contributions to members of the “insurrection caucus.” Some halted such contributions altogether.^[16] During the last election cycle at least 47 of these companies contributed to sponsors of state anti-voter legislation introduced after January 6.^[17]

Of the top 100 corporate donors to sponsors of anti-protest bills 36 donated to the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA). RAGA’s affiliate — the Rule of Law Defense Fund — sent robocalls to promote the January 6 march to the Capitol.^[18]

Eight companies (including five oil & gas companies) that support RAGA have lobbied for anti-protest bills in at least 2 states.^[19]

Many companies are also caught in a “chamber of contradictions” because of actions taken by trade associations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes the For The People Act (H.R. 1/ S. 1), despite the fact that many individual member companies oppose state anti-voter legislation.^[20] Executives from six companies that have spoken out against state anti-voter legislation — IBM, Boston Consulting Group, United Airlines, Microsoft, Deloitte and Ford — currently serve on the Chamber’s board of directors, its principal policy-making body.^[21]

At least six state and regional affiliates of the U.S. Chamber have also lobbied in favor of anti-protest laws.^[22]

The ten companies that contributed the most to state lawmakers sponsoring both anti-voter and anti-protest bills are^[23]:

• AT&T
• Dominion Energy
• Zurich North America + subsidiaries
• Berkshire Hathaway + subsidiaries
• UnitedHealth Group
• Mednax Services
• Charter Communications
• State Farm Insurance + subsidiaries
• Philip Morris USA
• Vistra Energy (FKA Energy Future Holdings) + subsidiaries

The whole world is watching the unfolding test of America’s continuing experiment with democracy. Corporate support for legislators and organizations who sponsor and vote for anti-voter and anti-protest bills poses a serious threat to America’s standing in the world, including our ability to negotiate to defend the climate and environmental boundaries that science and justice demand of us all.

Dollars to Attack Our Vote

No matter our race, background or zip code most of us believe that for democracy to work for all of us, it must include us all. Throughout our history, Americans have fought to expand voting rights so that all voters are able to cast their ballot and have it counted.

Speak Your Mind and Cast Your Vote

Voter registration shot up in June amid nationwide protests over the killing of George Floyd, according to a new analysis. “Despite a full or partial lockdown in large swaths of the country for much of the month, voter registration began to rebound as people took to the streets to protest,” analysis conducted by TargetSmart, a Democratic political data firm found.^[24]

Some of the surge in voter registration during June was most likely attributable to efforts by protest organizers to motivate large numbers of protesters to register and vote in the coming election, using creative means such as posting QR codes on protest signs that allowed protesters to scan the code and begin the registration process on their phones.^[25]

Voting also gives people a key means of peacefully preserving and strengthening other rights, including the right to healthy air and clean water.

As Michael Latner of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy has said: “Healthy communities require healthy democracy. When communities are disenfranchised or underrepresented, it becomes harder for them to use democratic institutions effectively to solve their problems and advocate for their interests.… This is the predicament faced by many environmental justice (EJ) communities—communities of color and low-income communities exposed to disproportionately high levels of toxic pollution and other environmental burdens.… [R]estrictive election laws, gerrymandering, and other factors combine to further reduce already low voter turnout in these communities, weakening their ability to protect themselves against environmental hazards.”^[26]

The new wave of state anti-voting bills that followed the conservative claims of 2020 election fraud gained national media attention when Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp signed S.B. 202, a new law infamous for making it a crime to hand out water or food to voters standing in line, among other anti-voter provisions.^[27] Attention to this anti-voter bill can be attributed to the response organized by civil and voting rights groups, including the New Georgia Project, Fair Fight, Black Voters Matter, and the NAACP.

These groups demanded Georgia-based companies like CocaCola, Delta, Home Depot and others that “helped fund the very authors of this regressive voting rights legislation” use their lobbying clout to oppose it.^[28] Yet the companies were slow to respond, publicly criticizing the legislation only after the bill was signed into law.^[29] Georgia is just one of many states where lawmakers are pushing to limit voting. By late March, at least 361 bills making voting more difficult for millions of people — especially Black and Brown voters — had been introduced in 47 states.^[30]

What These Bills Do

• Prohibit automatic voter registration or severely limiting or prohibiting same-day voter registration.^[31]
• Repeal universal voting by mail and other safety provisions (e.g. drop boxes) enacted in 2020 to make participation safer during the Covid-19 pandemic.^[32]
• Bar people from voting by mail unless they provide an excuse.^[33]
• Restrict types of IDs you can use to vote and when you can apply for vote-by-mail ballots.^[34]
• Threaten voters who request an absentee ballot with prosecution if they cannot prove an excuse such as illness, active military status, or will be out-of-state at the time of election.
• Prohibit city or township clerks from providing prepaid return postage for absentee voter ballots.^[35]
• Reduce the number of ballot drop box locations and times; limit early in-person voting and allow election officials to reduce the number of voting locations by raising the number of voters within a specific precinct.^[36]
• Delete people from voter rolls if they miss voting in recent elections, or require voters to re-register every three years or be removed from the registration list;^[37]
• Shift election authority for partisan gain from local and county officials to the Secretary of State or vice versa.^[38]
• Change the rules relating to voter registration drives in ways that may make compliance more difficult.^[39]

In many instances these restrictions disproportionately impact Black and Brown communities, younger and elderly voters, and poor communities — a growing portion of the voting population, and one that tends to be more progressive than average.^[40]

Georgia’s hastily enacted law has racist and partisan impacts that are features, not bugs, of the many similar bills moving through other statehouses. The original Georgia bill would have prevented voting on Sundays, a provision that was clearly targeted at Black communities, where church congregations have mobilized large numbers of people to join in “souls to the polls” caravans organized after church services.^[41] Although that provision was removed before the bill was signed into law, another infamous provision remains that makes it a crime to provide food or water to voters standing in line. This provision disproportionately affects communities of color, where voters waiting to cast their votes commonly experience long lines.

As conservative lawmakers in other states followed Georgia’s lead, some in the business community began responding to the outcry against Georgia-based companies by speaking out against what they saw as a racist and partisan attack on democracy.

On March 31, business leaders from the Black Economic Alliance proclaimed that “[t]he disproportionate racial impact of these allegedly ‘neutral laws’ should neither be overlooked nor excused.…The stakes for our democracy are too high to remain on the sidelines. Corporate America must support our nation’s fundamental democratic principles and marshal its collective influence to ensure fairness and equity for all…. Corporate America should publicly oppose any discriminatory legislation and all measures designed to limit Americans’ ability to vote. When it comes to protecting the rights of all Americans to vote, there can be no middle ground. We call upon our colleagues in Corporate America to join us in taking a non-partisan stand for equality and democracy. Each of us stands ready to work with you on what can and must be done.”^[42] Following their lead, more corporate leaders and companies began speaking out against the bills.^[43] On April 2, 2021, well over 200 top American business executives released a statement in support of protecting voting rights.^[44] Two weeks later, on April 14, over 500 companies and CEOs signed a statement published in the New York Times and Washington Post, expressing their opposition to “the 360+ state bills pending in 47 states that contain discriminatory voting measures.”^[45]

These statements by the corporate community are a welcome development, but they are not enough.

For one, companies committed to voting rights should stop contributing to any politician who authors, sponsors, or votes for anti-voter legislation. At least a dozen companies that endorsed the April 14 statement made campaign contributions to the sponsors of 2021 state anti-voter bills during the 2019-2020 election cycle: Amazon, American Express, Bank of America, Facebook, Ford, General Motors, HP, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Microsoft, United Airlines, and Wells Fargo.^[46]

When the outcry against anti-voter bills began to be directed at companies that helped legislators who sponsored the bills get elected, Greenpeace started digging into the companies that contributed to anti-voter bills sponsors during the most recent election cycle.^[47]

The 10 companies that made the largest combined campaign contributions to sponsors of the state anti-voter bills examined are as follows^[48]:

As corporate leaders increasingly understand, their employees, shareholders and other stakeholders expect companies to step up when political leaders fail to do so. A 2020 poll of over 2,000 US adults conducted by JUST Capital found that 3 in 4 Americans believe that large companies “have a role to play in preserving and protecting democracy.”^[49]

And many companies have, to some degree, begun to do so, however haltingly: After January 6, well over 140 companies recognized the importance of aligning their campaign contributions with their commitment to democratic norms and rights, by suspending (at least temporarily) any campaign contributions to members of Congress who refused to certify the results of the 2020 election.^[50]

Of the 100 companies that contributed the most to state lawmakers who sponsored anti-voter legislation this year, at least 32 suspended contributions to members of Congress after the January 6 insurrection.^[51] Of the more than 130 companies identified that suspended contributions to members of Congress who refused to certify the 2020 election results, 47 contributed to state lawmakers who have introduced anti-voter legislation in 2021.^[52]

Dollars to Silence Protest

“Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the right to protest for rights.” — Martin Luther King, Jr., April 3, 1968

The great movements of the past century — the Civil Rights movement, the labor movement, the women’s suffrage movement, the environmental movement — have all relied on peaceful protest to confront injustices and win wider public support. Greenpeace was itself founded 50 years ago by a small group of activists committed to using nonviolent direct action to stop nuclear weapons testing. Almost every day in America people come together peacefully to demonstrate and raise their voices about clean air and water, local land use, and other issues they believe in because peaceful protest works. Without the right to speak up, we wouldn’t have made significant gains towards equal rights for women and people of color, fair wages and working hours, or clean air and water.

In 2020, an unprecedented number of Americans joined the Movement for Black Lives to protest racist policing and force the country to begin to reckon with its long legacy of injustice and structural racism. At the same time, Indigenous defenders of sovereign land and water rights, climate activists, poor communities, and property-owners continue to resist the fossil fuel industry’s push to expand.

Today’s movements are facing responses similar to those encountered by historic movements, including the introduction of laws and policies designed to silence leaders and undermine public support for their cause.^[67]

Between May 2020 and January 2021, when massive protests against racialized police violence swept the country, three federal bills and 21 state bills “aimed at suppressing Black Lives Matter protesters” were introduced, according to the International Center for Not-For-Profit Law.^[68]

This was not the first time such legislation appeared. A similar wave of anti-protest bills occurred in 2017, largely in response to recent Black Lives Matter protests and Indigenous-led protests against construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) at the Standing Rock Reservation in North Dakota. In response to the DAPL protests, lawmakers introduced so-called “critical infrastructure” legislation designed to criminalize common movement tactics. Soon after, similar bills were introduced in other states, with support from fossil fuel lobbyists, industry trade associations, and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).^[69]

The 2020 surge in anti-protest legislation began after the death of George Floyd in the custody of Minneapolis police and the Black Lives Matter protests that followed.^[70] In just the first four months of 2021, dozens of bills have been introduced to restrict lawful assembly and speech, bringing the total number of state anti-protest bills to at least 94 since May 2020.^[71]

Assertions that last year’s Black Lives Matter protests justify the new anti-protest legislation fall apart when the facts are taken into consideration: A Washington Post analysis of thousands of BLM protests that took place across the nation last May and June found that 96.3 involved no property damage or police injuries, and in 97.7 percent of events no injuries were reported among participants, bystanders or police. “These figures should correct the narrative that the protests were overtaken by rioting and vandalism or violence,” the Post’s analysts concluded.^[72]

After January 6th, when white supremacists attacked the U.S. Capitol with the intention of stopping the peaceful transition of power, some state and federal lawmakers began pressing for new legal powers to prosecute domestic violent extremist groups.^[73] Yet critics warn that laws already exist for the crimes committed on January 6th, and that historical precedents suggest caution is required since those new legal powers could be used not just against white supremacist groups but also against Black and Brown communities already disproportionately targeted by law enforcement.

What These Bills Do

The provisions in many anti-protest bills are intended to penalize, marginalize and weaken protest movements in multiple ways. They would:

ESTABLISH HARSH AND REDUNDANT PENALTIES FOR PROTEST AND GIVE POLICE AND PROSECUTORS ARBITRARY ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY.

Some bills expand the definition of what constitutes a “riot” or “unlawful assembly,” thereby giving law enforcement expanded authority to arrest and prosecute peaceful protesters.^[74]

In Indiana, H.B.1205 would expand the definition of “unlawful assembly,” requiring that only three people be engaged in “tumultuous conduct,” defined as conduct that results in the “obstruction of law enforcement or other government function.” But “obstruction” is not defined in the bill, leaving it open to interpretation.^[75] According to the International Center for Not-For-Profit Law, “As a result of these changes, someone in a 3-person, peaceful protest whose conduct is deemed ‘likely’ to interfere with a government hearing, for instance, could be covered by the resulting ‘riot’ statute” and charged with a misdemeanor carrying a mandatory 30-day sentence.^[76]

Most anti-protest bills include new or expanded sentencing and/or fines for peaceful, nonviolent activity that is already illegal, such as trespass, property damage or obstructing traffic.^[77] Some reclassify misdemeanors, such as trespass, as felonies.^[78]

One aspect of this legislative trend has been to treat alleged criminal law violations as akin to “terrorism,” a linguistic smear used to justify cross-agency and federal law enforcement involvement in what would otherwise be state or local level prosecutions. Reports that federal, state, and local law enforcement have collaborated across jurisdictions against pipeline opponents, often describing activists as “domestic terrorists,” and coordinating and sharing information (sometimes with private security companies working for the industry) through “fusion centers” that were created after the 9/11 attacks to help law enforcement collaborate against terrorist threats across jurisdictions should concern anyone familiar with the history of government activities intended to discredit and disrupt previous movements.^[79]

One egregious example of this new wave of anti-protest laws was signed into law by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on April 19, 2021. DeSantis initially proposed the bill in September 2020, in response to statewide protests for racial justice, to immediate criticism by civil liberties groups and even a few law enforcement officials.^[80] The law carries a sentence of up to five years for peaceful protests, and could strip activists of their voting rights even if they didn’t engage in any violent or disorderly conduct. It also carries a threat of up to 15 years in prison for even temporarily blocking traffic in a group of 25 or more persons.^[81] Nancy Metayer, a prominent figure in South Florida’s 2020 summer protests and the first Haitian American City Commissioner in Coral Springs history, denounced the law as an “unequivocally unAmerican…assault on Florida’s Black and Brown families.” Metayer said it should be clearly seen and contextualized as a response to the millions of people in the state’s most marginalized communities who answered the moral call to combat systemic discrimination.^[82] Opponents are challenging the law as unconstitutional.^[83] Soon after DeSantis enacted the new law, the Broward County Sheriff’s Office directed its precinct captains to not enforce it without running the decision up the chain of command, explaining that it threatened to diminish its ability to connect with the community.^[84]

A few weeks later, the Montana legislature passed a bill Gov. Greg Gianforte is expected to sign, that some describe as one of the most extreme anti-protest bills yet. The bill seeks to penalize trespassing with intent to impede operations with a sentence of up to eighteen months in prison. The bill also includes financial penalties for organizations convicted of “conspiracy” for supporting protesters.^[85]

Many bills not only expand law enforcement’s ability to stifle speech and stop dissent, they often include incentives to do so. Indiana H.B. 1205, for example, allows businesses to sue governments for failing to enforce the law against unlawful assembly if the failure constitutes “gross negligence,” a measure would encourage local governments to adopt overly aggressive responses to protests in order to avoid being sued.^[86]

Another Indiana bill, S.B. 198, gives the state’s Attorney General concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute any “criminal offense” committed by members of an “unlawful assembly,” allowing them to step in and charge protesters if local prosecutors decline to do so.^[87] Other bills create new penalties for government officials who try to “stand down” police (North Carolina H.B. 321), undermining local officials’ ability to participate in decisions over policing of protests and potentially incentivizing aggressive police responses.^[88]

TARGET COMMUNITIES OF COLOR

Anti-protest bills are a direct response to Black Lives Matter and other BIPOC-led movements, laying bare their racist intent. In addition, many include provisions that would disproportionately impact poor communities, especially communities of color, by imposing massive fines and/or making anyone convicted of specified protest-related charges, ineligible for public assistance.

One example is Kentucky’s S.B 211, which would have barred anyone convicted under an overbroad and vague definition of rioting from receiving certain public benefits for up to a year, and expose them to other penalties including mandatory minimum prison sentences.^[89] If passed, this bill would have effectively forced many Kentuckians to weigh their First Amendment right to join a rally against their access to health care, housing and nutrition assistance.

MARGINALIZE PROTEST MOVEMENTS AND DISCOURAGE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Bills that penalize bystanders who attend events where criminal laws are allegedly broken have the intended effect of frightening and discouraging people from attending protests. Indiana’s S.B. 198, for example, seeks to creates a new Class B misdemeanor offense, “enabling riot.” It applies to anyone who knowingly witnesses the commission of a felony during an “unlawful assembly” and fails to “immediately” either leave the location or report the offense to law enforcement.^[90]

When lawful protesters face massive fines and disproportionately punitive criminal penalties, they may choose to stay home instead of exercising their constitutional right to free speech. As one scholar recently put it, “although the state has an interest in ensuring respect for the rule of law, the disproportionately harsh penalties…go far and above that interest and are detrimental to democracy.”^[91]

SANCTION AND BANKRUPT ORGANIZATIONS THAT SUPPORT PEACEFUL PROTESTS AND MOVEMENT BUILDING

Many anti-protest bills include “aiding and abetting” clauses that allow any individual or organization to be charged with a crime for providing support to peaceful protesters who break the law.

Indiana’s S.B. 198 creates a new “financing an unlawful assembly” Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail. It targets individuals who give “anything of value” to another person knowing that they intend to commit civil disobedience as part of an “unlawful assembly.” In addition, felony charges with penalties of up to six years in prison are established for donors to any group that intends to commit civil disobedience.^[92]

TURN ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE REAL PROBLEM

These anti-protest laws use the cover of “public safety” to expand law enforcement’s powers to criminalize peaceful protest. By doing so, these bills divert attention away from policies that would reduce police misconduct by removing “qualified immunity” and other legal shields that protect officers from accountability for violent and unjust actions.

Similarly, peaceful protests against oil and gas pipelines have been deemed threats to “critical infrastructure” by a slew of bills designed to quash those protests. These laws distort the definition of a term originally used to safeguard communities from the risks associated with sabotage and attacks on petrochemical plants and other industrial infrastructure. For corporate polluters, these laws targeting peaceful protesters help divert attention away from their own responsibility for threats to community safety, including chemical accidents and spills, along with the toxic pollution they spew across nearby communities on a nearly daily basis. It also diverts attention from operational and technological changes companies could implement to make the nation’s infrastructure and surrounding communities inherently safer and more resilient.

SOW DIVISION AND ENCOURAGE VIOLENCE

Some anti-protest bills encourage vigilante violence by shielding drivers from criminal and/or civil liability for intentionally injuring or even killing protesters if they can demonstrate that protesters were obstructing traffic without a permit or engaged in a “riot,” a term often loosely defined.

The protection of vigilantism — often in the name of public safety — goes back to the days of slavery and post-Civil War terrorist acts committed by the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups. The deliberate vehicular homicide committed by a neo-Nazi during the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia is a more recent and infamous example. But drivers have plowed into peaceful protesters an alarming number of times since Charlottesville, and an increasing number of anti-protest laws would shield them from any legal consequences for doing so. From May 27 through September 5, 2020 drivers ran into demonstrators at Black Lives Matter protests 104 times according to a researcher at the University of Chicago’s Project on Security and Threats. In 96 of these incidents, the drivers were civilians; the other 8 involved police.^[93]

Driver immunity provisions have been included in over a dozen bills introduced in the past year. As of this writing, two such bills – one in Florida and the other in Oklahoma – have been enacted into law.^[94] These laws endanger public safety by immunizing violence, just as the infamous “stand your ground” laws have resulted in an increase in firearm homicides.^[95]

Susan Bro, whose daughter Heather Heyer was run over and killed in Charlottesville, describes the new driver immunity laws as the equivalent to “declaring open season. It’s a hunting license, is what it basically is.”^[96]

DIMINISH AMERICAN DEMOCRACY IN THE EYES OF THE REST OF THE WORLD

International human rights observers have concluded that the new wave of U.S. anti-protest laws also violate global standards of democracy and civil liberties. In December, for example, CIVICUS Monitor downgraded the United States’ standing on fundamental freedoms of association, peaceful assembly and expression based on “concerns about restrictive laws and excessive force used against protesters.”^[97]

Under international law, the right of peaceful assembly is protected by Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which was ratified by the United States in 1992. In 2010, the UN Human Rights Council created the position of Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, to monitor and report on threats to freedom of assembly throughout the world. UN Special Rapporteur Maina Kiai conducted an official mission to the United States in July, 2016 and reported that America was “struggling to live up to its ideals.”^[98] Kiai described rampant racism and exclusion, especially of African-Americans, and unequal economic wealth distribution following the 2007-08 financial crisis. These events, he found, gave way to increased demonstrations. “There is justifiable and palpable anger in the black community over these injustices. It needs to be expressed,” he stressed. “This is the context that gave birth to the non-violent Black Lives Matter protest movement and the context in which it must be understood.”

Underwriting Racism: Corporate Contributions to Anti-Protest Bill Sponsors and Supporters

Greenpeace identified the 100 companies that made the largest contributions to sponsors of state anti-protest bills, introduced between June 1, 2020 and March 25, 2021.^[99]

The ten companies with the greatest total contributions to politicians sponsoring anti-protest bills are listed in this table:

Fossil Fuel Companies and Anti-Protest Bills

It’s no surprise that fossil fuel companies are among the largest corporate contributors to sponsors of anti-protest bills, since many of these bills directly target frontline resistance to the industry’s expansion. Twenty-two of the top 100 companies — responsible for $1,257,974 in contributions — are either directly or indirectly involved in producing, transporting or distributing fossil fuels:

Five oil and gas companies:

1. Koch Industries (#2)
2. Marathon Petroleum (#21)
3. Chevron (#67)
4. Phillips 66 (#71)
5. ExxonMobil (#78)

Eleven electric utilities heavily reliant on fossil fuels:

1. Berkshire Hathaway^[100] (#4)
2. Duke Energy (#6)
3. Dominion Energy (#11)
4. AEP (#23)
5. Southern Company (#24)
6. Pinnacle West/Arizona Public Service (#33)
7. NextEra^[101] (#38)
8. FirstEnergy (#52)
9. Salt River Project (#64)
10. TECO Energy/EMERA (#91)
11. Ameren (#96)

Four natural gas utilities/distributors:

1. NISOURCE (#40)
2. Atmos (#48)
3. Southwest Gas (#55)
4. IGS Ventures/IGS Energy (#74)

Two railroad companies:

1. CSX (#53)
2. Union Pacific (#46)

The Fossil Fuel Industry Lobbying Offensive

Greenpeace also investigated corporate lobbying for anti-protest bills aimed specifically at restraining activists that stand in the way of the fossil fuel industry’s aggressive attempt to strangle the continent with a network of pipelines and other fossil fuel “infrastructure.” These bills are a subset of the larger list of anti-protest bills we analyzed above.^[102]

The argument is often made that companies contribute to political candidates for many reasons, and that campaign contributions do not buy votes on specific legislation, even if they might buy access to legislators in some cases.^[103] That’s why companies spend even more money on in-house and external lobbyists, “government affairs” consultants, think tanks, PR firms, charitable groups, academic shills, trade associations, and other players that comprise the powerful networks of influence they operate in Washington and state capitals across the country.^[104]

An analysis of lobbying disclosure reports found that oil and gas companies have directed by far the most resources to lobbying for anti-protest “critical infrastructure” bills introduced between 2017 and 2021, holding eight of the top 10 spots. The other two are closely tied to the industry — companies that transport and use fossil fuels for electricity generation.^[105]

Many of these companies are directly involved or invested in projects fiercely opposed by the climate justice movement.

Enbridge: Indigenous rights activists in Minnesota and Wisconsin have led resistance to the permitting and construction of Enbridge’s Line 3 pipeline in those states since 2013.^[106] Private security companies working for Enbridge have shared information about activists with local police, while Minnesota’s federal “fusion center” — one of many created to share counterintelligence information about terrorist threats — has tracked Line 3 opponents by communicating with police in at least three states.^[107] On February 25, Rep. Shane Mekeland (R) and Rep. Eric Lucero (R) introduced Minnesota HF 1558, which would hold anyone liable for aiding or advising individuals who trespass on critical infrastructure property. The legislation is similar to a bill that was first introduced in 2018.^[108]

Energy Transfer: The company’s Dakota Access Pipeline has become a national and international litmus test of Indigenous sovereignty and rights and of the nation’s commitment to curbing climate change. Soon after a new anti-protest law was passed in Louisiana, off-duty law enforcement employed by a private security company retained by Energy Transfer used the law to crack down on local protesters against the Bayou Bridge pipeline, even arresting activists canoeing in public waters outside the borders of the pipeline easement.^[109]

Marathon Petroleum: Marathon bought a partial interest in the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016, amidst growing opposition to the project led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.^[110] Environmental Justice activists say that Marathon’s Detroit refinery is primarily responsible for making the neighboring predominantly Black zip code the most polluted in Michigan.^[111]

Dominion Resources: The company canceled its Atlantic Coast Pipeline in 2020 after six years of persistent opposition by landowners and climate justice activists.^[112]

TC Energy (TransCanada): TransCanada is the owner and developer of the Keystone XL Pipeline. For nearly a decade the company has sought ways to criminalize opposition to the project. In 2013, Bold Nebraska obtained documents revealing that the Canadian company was providing security briefings to Nebraska authorities advising them to explore the viability of using “anti-terrorism laws” against pipeline opponents.^[113] In 2019, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem signed a bill with severe penalties for “riot boosting” that was designed to weaken opposition to the pipeline’s construction. The governor and the state’s attorney general later agreed not to enforce the law after a settlement stemming from an ACLU challenge to the law’s constitutionality.^[114]

Valero Energy: Valero, the second largest oil refiner in the country, was planning to be an “anchor customer” of the Keystone XL Pipeline before President Biden canceled the project on his first day in office.^[115] The pipeline was designed to move Alberta tar sands oil down to the Gulf Coast, where it was to supply Valero’s refineries in Texas and Louisiana.^[116] Emails obtained by Documented and published by The Intercept indicate that Julie Klumpyan, Valero’s Director of Government Affairs, called Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin to encourage her to sign H.B. 1123, an anti-protest bill, which Fallin eventually did.^[117] Koch Industries: Koch Industries is a leader among the dozen fossil fuel companies that have persistently lobbied for “critical infrastructure” legislation since 2017. It’s also the second largest contributor to anti-protest bill sponsors in the most recent election cycle.^[118]

Koch Industries has pushed aggressively for legislation that creates new criminal offenses for acts of civil disobedience and nonviolent protest. It backed a Texas law enacted in 2019 that criminalizes peaceful protests taking place near a pipeline or other infrastructure, regardless of whether the protests actually impair or interrupt the facility’s operations.^[119] The Texas-based Society of Native Nations opposed the bill in the state legislature, emphasizing that the increased penalties would inhibit free speech and unfairly criminalize Indigenous people trying to protect their land.^[120]

Interestingly, similar anti-protest bills have also been opposed by a senior analyst with Americans for Prosperity (AfP), a leading group in the network of politically active nonprofit organizations funded by Charles Koch and his late brother David. David Voorman, AfP’s senior policy analyst for free speech and peace, denounced Georgia’s “Safe Communities Act” and similar anti-protest bills as unconstitutional infringements on free speech for requiring permits for assembling on public property.^[121] Voorman’s opposition to these bills is arguably in line with the libertarian principles espoused by the Koch Brothers. And yet, when the Koch Brothers’ principles conflict with Koch Industries’ profits, it’s the bottom line that seems to win out.

The Insurance Journal asked Koch Industries spokesman David Dziok about the anti-protest provisions in critical infrastructure bills supported by the company. Dziok said the bills “are necessary — not only for the safety of the communities in which we operate, but also for the safety of those exercising their rights to demonstrate.”^[122]

However, the company’s professed concern for the safety of its neighboring communities is belied by the major role it played in the aggressive and successful effort to kill chemical safety legislation introduced in Congress in the years following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.^[123] The legislation would have required companies to substitute safer materials and inherently safer technologies for existing ones.^[124] Koch officials argued that the safer standards weren’t needed since there hadn’t been another attack since 9/11.^[125] But the bills were designed to protect against both deliberate attacks and catastrophic accidents, which have happened in the years before and after 9/11. Because Koch Industries helped kill the legislation, millions of Americans continue to be threatened by the potential for chemical releases caused by accidents or sabotage.^[126]

Industry Trade Associations: Fossil fuel companies also lobby for anti-protest bills through business associations such as the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM),^[127] the American Petroleum Institute and state affiliates of the US Chamber of Commerce.^[128] These groups often play a critical role in coordinating legislative strategy. In 2019, for example, The Intercept obtained a recording of AFPM lobbyist Derrick Morgan explaining that model legislation distributed to an audience of industry representatives had been drafted in response to protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline: “We’ve seen a lot of success at the state level.…We’re up to nine states that have passed laws that are substantially close to the model policy that you have in your packet.”^[129]

The fossil fuel industry’s ties to law enforcement agencies and state and local police raises additional concerns, particularly since police associations have also lobbied for anti-protest legislation.

Fossil fuel companies have donated to police foundations and, in some cases, served on their boards.^[130] It is also fairly common for companies to employ off-duty law enforcement officers as plant security. With respect to anti-protest legislation, this creates the potential for conflicts of interest and situations in which officers could abuse their authority on behalf of private-sector employers. In Louisiana, “extraduty” state corrections officers used air generated by their boat’s propeller to blow the anti-pipeline activists from a nearby bayou onto an easement owned by Energy Transfer Partners (ETP); the “extra-duty” officers were employed at the time by an ETP security contractor.^[131] In Pennsylvania, off-duty police were hired by Kinder-Morgan, a pipeline company, to “deter” protestors.^[132]

Potential conflicts of interest involving lawmakers who might personally benefit from anti-protest legislation they sponsor or vote for is another valid concern. In Ohio, Sen. Frank Hoagland (R) was the primary sponsor of S.B. 33, a new “critical infrastructure” law that was passed and signed into law by Governor Mike DeWine in January 2021.^[133] Hoagland runs a private security firm that consults for oil and gas companies.^[134] Hoagland met with a lobbyist retained by Koch Industries to discuss “critical infrastructure” in 2018.^[135]

Corporate Responsibility and Actions

In the summer of 2020, many companies responded to the Movement for Black Lives protests by formally pledging to address racial justice.^[136] Most of these pledges are internal commitments to diversity and inclusion that involve hiring and advancement practices, pay equity and other policies. Some involve underwriting low-income housing and small and medium-sized enterprises.^[137] A growing number of companies are donating to policy initiatives involving civil rights and criminal justice reforms, part of the larger challenge of addressing structural racism.^[138] But addressing structural racism also means aligning corporate political activities with the democratic values that many of these same companies are committing to. Companies that don’t continuously strive to align their political activities with the values they espouse and commitments they make risk damaging their own reputations, potentially hurting their bottom line.

Hundreds of companies themselves made that immediately clear after the January 6 attack on the Capitol, suspending contributions to members of Congress who flouted the will of the electorate by refusing to certify the results of the 2020 election.^[139]

But companies that profess a commitment to racial justice and democracy must go further. They need to choose which side they are on and end their support for politicians seeking to restrict the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of speech and assembly, particularly when those restrictions are targeted at or disproportionately enforced against communities of color.

Companies cannot have it both ways: You cannot pretend to be a climate champion by pointing to reduced carbon emissions while contributing to politicians who block climate policies or attack the rights of Indigenous land and water protectors and climate activists. You cannot claim to be committed to racial justice while supporting politicians who sponsor bills designed to criminalize and strip away the constitutional rights of Black and Brown protesters. What follows are specific recommendations for companies to take under consideration in determining how their actions measure up to their commitments.

Conclusion and Recommendations

America is confronting an historic and overlapping set of challenges, including a climate crisis that threatens to spiral out of control. We cannot effectively and equitably address these crises in a democracy that excludes communities that are most impacted. When such is the case, Americans lose the right to legitimately describe their government as a democracy.^[140]

The same communities that bear the worst impacts of pollution and poverty are also the targets of voter suppression and the criminalization of protest. And that’s on top of the many existing and ongoing related injustices they face, including surveillance, deportation, mass criminalization, incarceration, and police violence. Ultimately, the injustices inflicted upon such communities affect the entire society. Injustices so large cannot be ignored, even by those in the most powerful perches of privilege.

Fortunately, some corporate leaders have begun to acknowledge their responsibility to step up and join the defenders of democracy and inclusion, inside and outside of government.

After the violent insurrection on January 6, at least 130 companies suspended PAC contributions to members of Congress who refused to certify the results of the 2020 Election.^[141] Days later, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and the National Association of Manufacturers called for a peaceful transfer of power.^[142]

Yet the attacks on democracy have persisted after Trump’s exit from office. The false flag of election fraud has been carried to Georgia and other states, where anti-voter legislation has been introduced in the name of election integrity.

Two weeks after a group of prominent Black business leaders called upon Corporate America to “marshal its collective influence to ensure fairness and equity for all,” hundreds of companies and individual executives joined together to publish “We Stand for Democracy,” the statement denouncing state legislative attacks on voters’ rights, in the Washington Post and New York Times.^[143]

These actions are welcome. But more action is needed at both the state and federal levels. With 361 anti-voter bills introduced in 47 states (as of late March 2021), and some already passed and signed into law, the time has come for companies to support the enactment of national standards to overturn these laws and ensure that every American can safely and freely cast their ballot.

Given its historical support for many of the most antidemocratic politicians in the country, the corporate community has a lot to answer for. Its commitment to democracy will be measured in the weeks and months ahead by the actions they take.

Recommendations

Support strong national standards for voting rights and election reform.

• Publicly support the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 4). ^[144]
• Join the overwhelming majority of Americans across the political spectrum who support the For The People Act (H.R. 1/ S. by publicly supporting the bill.^[145]

QUIT SUPPORTING POLITICIANS WHO SPONSOR OR VOTE FOR ANTI-VOTER AND ANTI-PROTEST LEGISLATION

Americans expect companies to align their actions with their values: A recent poll by Morning Consult found that 57 percent of Americans think companies “should cut back on donations to elected officials who are working to limit voting rights.”^[146]

Companies must withhold and ultimately end all forms of direct or indirect political spending for lawmakers who introduce, sponsor or vote for legislation designed to restrict people’s basic right to vote.^[147]

BEYOND PAC CONTRIBUTIONS: STOP ALL POLITICAL SPENDING

PACs account for only a fraction of the money that flows from companies into politics.^[148] Companies contribute far more to party committees, Super PACs and politically-active non-profit “dark money” groups.^[149] In the 2020 cycle, for example, companies and wealthy individuals were primarily responsible for the over $2 billion spent by Super PACs.^[150] Ultimately, companies need to suspend all forms of direct and indirect campaign spending.^[151]

Big money in politics creates a structural form of discrimination that makes it much harder for Black and Brown people to build and exert political power and effectively advocate for their interests and community needs, including their ability to run for and win elected office. Large donors skew sharply white due to racial wealth disparities driven by historic and current discrimination.^[152] It is time to build on the successes of state and local models of publicly financed campaigns by passing the For The People Act (H.R. 1/ S. 1).

It is also time to ensure more transparency in political spending to reduce corruption and increase accountability, another important principle behind some of the disclosure requirements contained in the For the People Act.^[153]

Companies should also adopt a code of conduct for political spending and disclosure, as recommended by many shareholder groups and experts in corporate accountability and governance.^[154]

“CHANGE THE CHAMBER”

Companies that “stand for democracy” should withdraw their support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce so long as it opposes the For The People Act (H.R. 1/ S. 1) or work within to stop it from lobbying against “the greatest civil rights bill since the civil rights movement itself.”^[155]

Executives from six companies that endorsed the “We Stand for Democracy” statement released on April 14 — IBM, Boston Consulting Group, United Airlines, Microsoft, Deloitte and Ford — serve on the Chamber’s board of directors, its “principal governing and policymaking body.”^[156]

These and other Chamber member companies that signed the statement, bear a particular responsibility to either change the Chamber’s position or demonstrate their conviction and disagreement with the Chamber’s position by resigning.^[157]

DEFEND THE RIGHT TO DISSENT

Companies must recognize the important role that peaceful protesting has played in advancing the cause of democracy. Companies that respect and support the constitutionally protected right to peacefully protest should take the following actions:

• Stop supporting state lawmakers who sponsor or vote for anti-protest legislation.
• Stop supporting the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) along with state and regional affiliates of the Chamber of Commerce, so long as they support anti-protest legislation.^[158]
• Stop doing business with other companies that lobby in support of anti-protest legislation.
• Withdraw support for any police association or other groups that lobby for anti-protest legislation.
• Don’t hire individuals or contract with private security companies with a record of surveillance and infiltration of activist groups, or who are connected to violent extremist and white supremacist groups

Appendices

A. Corporate contributions to sponsors of state anti-voter bills.
⇒ Methodology used for state anti-voter research.

B. Corporate contributions to sponsors of state anti-protest bills.
⇒ Methodology used for that anti-protest research.

C. Companies lobbying for critical infrastructure bills.
⇒ Methodology used to rank corporate lobbying.

D. Companies that gave the most to state sponsors of both types of bills.
⇒ Methodology used for state anti-voter research.

E. Companies that suspended PAC contributions to members of Congress after Jan. 6.3M

Abbott Labs

Abbvie

Accenture

ADM

AES

Aflac

Airbnb

Alaska Air

Allstate

Altria

Amazon

American Airlines

American Express

American Investment Council

Amgen

AT&T

BASF

Best Buy

Blackrock

Bloomin’ Brands

Blue Cross Blue Shield

Boston Scientific

Boeing

BP

Capital One

Cargill

CBOE

Charles Schwab

Cheniere

Chubb

Cigna

Cisco

Citibank/Citigroup

Clorox

CME Group (Mercantile Exchange)

Coca-Cola

Comcast

Commerce Bankshare

ConocoPhillips

Dell

Deloitte

Disney

Dow Chemical

Duke Energy

Ebay

Edward Jones

Edison International

Eli Lilly

Ernst & Young

Exelon

Expedia

Facebook

First Energy

Ford

Freeport-McMoRan

Genentech

General Electric

General Mills

Gilead Sciences

Goldman Sachs

Google

H&R Block

Hilton

Honeywell

Horizon

Intel

Intercontinental Exchange

Intuit

Investment Company Institute

Jacobs Engineering

JBS

Jet Blue

Johnson & Johnson

JPMChase

KPMG

KraftHeinz

Kroger

Leidos

Liberty Mutual

Loan Syndications and Trading Association

Lockheed Martin

Managed Funds Association

Marathon Petroleum

Major League Baseball

Marriott

Mass Mutual

Mastercard

McDonald’s

Microsoft

Morgan Stanley

NASDAQ

Newmont

New York Life

Nike

Northrup Grumman

Novo Nordisk

Occidental Petroleum

Oracle

PepsiCo

PG&E

PNC Financial Svcs

PPG

Pfizer

PricewaterhouseCoopers

Public Service Enterprise Group

Qurate Retail Group

Raytheon

Safeway

Sanofi

Smithfield

Sony Music

S & P Global

Southern Company

Spirit Aerosystems

State Street

Target

Tyson Foods

UBS

Union Pacific

UnitedHealth Group

Universal Music Group

United Parcel Service

Valero Energy

Verizon

ViacomCBS

Visa

Walgreens

Walmart

Warner Music Group

Wells Fargo

Zillow

Endnotes

^[1] Brennan Center for Justice, State Voting Laws Tracker, April 1, 2021 (updated). Link.

^[2] Reid J. Epstein and Patricia Mazzei, “G.O.P. Bills Target Protesters (and Absolve Motorists Who Hit Them),” New York Times, April 22, 2021. Link. To find specific bills, see the International Center for Not-For-Profit Law’s US Protest Law Tracker.

^[3] See “Timeline: Oil and Gas Critical Infrastructure Anti-Protest Bills,” Polluter Watch (Greenpeace). Link, and International Center For Not-For-Profit Law US Protest Law Tracker. Link; Nora Benavidez and James Trager, “Arresting Dissent: Legislative Restrictions on the Right to Protest,” PEN America, May 2020. Link.

^[4] “Fossil Fuel Racism,” Greenpeace, April 14, 2021. Link.

^[5] See Greenpeace, “Fossil Fuel Racism,” section on climate impacts, especially the subsection titled “disproportionate impact.” Link.

^[6] Ballew, M., Maibach, E., Kotcher, J., Bergquist, P., Rosenthal, S., Marlon, J., and Leiserowitz, A. (2020). Which racial/ethnic groups care most about climate change?. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. Link.

^[7] One such group was the Republican Attorneys General Association’s (RAGA) dark money fundraising division, the Rule of Law Defense Fund. Although RLDF does not disclose its funders, RAGA itself received funding in 2020 from companies mentioned in this report, including Koch Industries, Comcast, Pfizer and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, via its Institute for Legal Reform. Some companies including Walmart, Coca-Cola and Comcast were reportedly reconsidering their relationship with RAGA after the Capitol Riot. See “Cash for the Coup: The Groups Behind Capital Riots Are Funded By Mainstream Conservative and Corporate Donors,” Accountable.US Link Months before the insurrection, reports emerged that individuals working for the oil/gas industry in the Bakken region identified themselves as members of the Three Percenters, one of the anti-government militias that promoted the “Stop the Steal” caravan to Washington, DC.

^[8] Ryan Schleeter, “How Oil and Gas Companies Funded an Attempted Coup,” Greenpeace, January 11, 2021. Link; Public Citizen, “Fossil Fuel Insurrectionists: Since 2016, 65 Fossil Fuel Corporate PACS Contributed $8.8M to Members of Congress Who Denied Democracy and Supported Trump’s Push to Overturn the Election” January 27, 2021. Link.

^[9] Ari Drennan and Sally Hardin, “Climate Deniers in the 117th Congress,” Center for American Progress, May 30, 2021. Link.

^[10] See, for example, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, “Captured: The Corporate Infiltration of American Democracy,” New Press, 2019; “Kingpins of Carbon,” Greenpeace, 2014. Link; Jane Mayer, Dark Money, Random House, 2016.

^[11] Mark Niesse, “Georgia voting restrictions challenged again in third federal lawsuit,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, March 30, 2021. Link; Alexander Ulmer, “Civil rights groups urge companies to join fight against Georgia voting restrictions,” Reuters, March 5, 2021. Link.

^[12] For more details, see our descriptions of the methodologies used for state anti-voter legislation and anti-protest legislation.

^[13] The 44, as well as the 80 companies that contributed $5,000 or more to these 44 bill sponsors in the most recent cycle can be found here. See tabs 2.1 and 2.2.

^[14] See “We Stand For Democracy,” Black Economic Alliance, April 14, 2021 Link.

^[15] See “We Stand For Democracy.” We suspect there are more since we looked exclusively at contributions to the primary sponsors of just 43 of the 361 state anti-voter bills introduced by the end of March, within the most recent election cycle (2019-2020). See notes on methodology.

^[16] While we count at least 130 companies, a survey of senior corporate representatives by the Conference Board concluded that hundreds more temporarily stopped making PAC contributions without announcing it publicly. See “Corporate PACs Took Unprecedented Action by Broadly Suspending Political Contributions Following Capitol Riot” (Press Release), February 12, 2021. Link.

^[17] See column E in this spreadsheet. We analyzed campaign contributions to sponsors of 43 state anti-voter bills. Since there were 361 state anti-voter bills identified by the Voting Rights Lab and Brennan Center by the end of March (and more since), the number of companies is likely much greater.

^[18] Laura Strickler and Lisa Cavazuti, “Republican AG group sent robocalls urging march on the Capitol,” NBC News, January 7, 2021. Link. The 36 companies were identified by cross-checking the list of contributors to the sponsors of state anti-protest legislation (link) with a list of RAGA 2020 donors posted by Documented. Link Also see Robert O’Harrow Jr., “Rallies ahead of Capital riot were planned by established Washington insiders,” Washington Post, January 17, 2021. Link America First Action, another group involved in the January 6 riot, receives funding from companies including Fanjul Corp (makers of Florida Crystals sugar) and Vital Pharmaceuticals (makers of Bang energy drinks). See Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, “Follow the Money Behind the Capitol Riot,” Brennan Center for Justice, January 25, 2021. Link.

^[19] Companies identified by cross-checking companies lobbying for state anti-protest bills (link) with RAGA donor list posted on Documented. Link The 8 are Koch Industries, Marathon Petroleum, Exxon Mobil, BNSF, Valero, CenterPoint Energy, CenturyLink, and TC Energy/TransCanada. Another 8 RAGA donor companies – Chevron, Duke Energy, AEP, NextEra, Charter Communications, Entergy, Nucor Steel and Verizon – have lobbied for anti-protest bills in at least 1 state.

^[20] See U.S. Chamber, “Key Vote Alert” to members of the U.S. Senate, April 13, 2021. Link.

^[21] U.S. Chamber of Commerce, “Executive Leadership: Board of Directors” (Link). The list of board members can be found here: Link.

^[22] See “Trade Association Lobbying” tab in the Greenpeace spreadsheet ranking corporate lobbying for state anti-protest laws.Link.

^[23] See “2021 Anti-Protest Bills: Funding to Legislative Sponsors” (spreadsheet), Tab 2.2: “Top Corp Funders of Anti-Voting & Anti-Protest.” Link. For a description of the methodology used for this list, go here (scroll down).

^[24] TargetSmart, “August 7, 2020 – The Impact of Covid & the Civil Rights Movement on Voter Registration,” August 7, 2020. Link.

^[25] Jane C. Timm, “Voter registration surged during BLM protests, study finds,” NBC News, August 11, 2020. Link.

^[26] Michael Latner, “Building a Healthier Democracy: The Link between Voting Rights and Environmental Justice” (report), Union of Concerned Scientists Center for Science and Democracy, August. Link

^[27] Zack Beauchamp, “Yes, the Georgia election law is that bad,” Vox, April 6, 2021. Link. For the bill’s text see GA 202. For summaries of specific state anti-voter bills, with links to the bill text, see the Voting Rights Lab’s State Voting Rights Tracker.

^[28] Dahlia Lithwick, “Corporations Bet on Both Parties, and Our Democracy,” April 13, 2021. Link.

^[29] Hannah Denham and Jena McGregor, “Georgia sports teams and major companies such as Coca-Cola and Delta Air Lines condemn new state voting law,” Washington Post, March 31, 2021. Link.

^[30] The Brennan Center for Justice, Voting Laws Roundup: March 2021. Link.

^[31] Arizona H 2793.

^[32] Nevada A 134.

^[33] Arizona S.B. 1503; Colorado S 7; Georgia H 325; Georgia S 71; Georgia S 241; Pennsylvania H 25 and S 402.

^[34] Georgia H 270; Georgia S 202; Iowa SF 413; North Carolina S 326; Arizona S 1713; Colorado H 1086; Michigan S.B. 285; Virginia H 1970; Wisconsin S 204.

^[35] Michigan S.B.287.

^[36] South Carolina H 3771; Arizona S 1593; Fluorida S 90; Georgia S 202; Iowa HF 590; Iowa SF 413; Michigan S.B. 286; Wisconsin S 209.

^[37] Michigan H 4127; South Carolina S 365.

^[38] Arizona H.B. 2302; Arizona S 1068. See “A Democracy Crisis in the Making: How State Legislatures Are Politicizing, Criminalizing, and Interfering With Election Administration,” Protect Democracy, April 22, 2021. Link.

^[39] Florida S 90.

^[40] Amy Gardner and Amy Wang, “Georgia governor signs into law sweeping voting bill that curtails the use of drop boxes and imposes new ID requirements for mail voting,” Washington Post, March 25, 2021. Link.

^[41] “Black Church Leaders in Georgia on the Importance of ‘Souls to the Polls,” NPR (Morning Edition), March 22, 2021. Link.

^[42] “Black Executives Call On Corporations to Fight Restrictive Voting Laws,” Black Economic Alliance, March 31, 2021. Link.

^[43] Hannah Denham and Jenna McGregor, “HP, Dow, Under Armour among nearly 200 companies speaking out against voting law changes in Texas, other states,” Washington Post, April 2, 2021. Link.

^[44] “Joint Statement on Protecting Voting Access,” Civic Alliance, April 2, 2021. Link.

^[45] “We Stand For Democracy,” Black Economic Alliance, April 14, 2021 Link.

^[46] We suspect there are more since we looked exclusively at the primary sponsors of just 43 of the 361 anti-voter bills introduced by the end of March. See notes on methodology.

^[47] The results can be found here. A more detailed description of the methodology used can be found here. In a similar, but broader analysis, Public Citizen found that since 2015 corporations have contributed $50 million to state legislators supporting voter suppression bills, including $22 million during the 2020 election cycle. See Public Citizen, “The Corporate Sponsors of Voter Suppression,” April 2021. Link.

^[48] A longer list of companies that contributed to sponsors of these state anti-voter bills is included in this spreadsheet: Link.

^[49] Jennifer Tonti and Jill Mizell, “As the 2020 Election Approaches, Americans Say Companies Have a Role to Play in Upholding and Protecting Democracy,” JUST Capital, October 2020. Link.

^[50] For a list of companies that suspended PAC contributions, go here. According to the Conference Board, many more corporate PACs suspended contributions than were reported or revealed. “Survey: Corporate PACs Took Unprecedented Action by Broadly Suspending Political Contributions Following Capitol Riot,” The Conference Board, February 12, 2021.Link.

^[51] “Survey: Corporate PACs Took Unprecedented Action by Broadly Suspending Political Contributions Following Capitol Riot,” The Conference Board, February 12, 2021.Link. For a list of companies that suspended PAC contributions, go here. According to the Conference Board, many more corporate PACs suspended contributions than were reported or revealed.

^[52] See column D in this spreadsheet.

^[53] The Center for Political Accountability and Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research’s Model Code of Conduct for Business Political Spending requires that companies disclose payments made to trade associations that it anticipates being used for political expenditures, and that the company require such associations to report how they are used and the candidates whom the spending supports. Although companies are currently not required to do so, the 2020 CPA-Zicklin Index found that corporate political spending disclosure is on the rise.

^[54] Center for Responsive Politics. US Chamber of Commerce.

^[55] Alyssa Katz, The Influence Machine, Random House, 2015. See also Chamber Watch, Public Citizen.

^[56] Center for Responsive Politics. Link.

^[57] See, for example, lobbying disclosure reports filed by the U.S. Chamber with the Senate.

^[58] See U.S. Chamber, “Key Vote Alert” to members of the U.S. House, March 2, 2021. Link; and U.S. Chamber, “Key Vote Alert” to members of the U.S. Senate, April 13, 2021. Link.

^[59] See U.S. Chamber, “Key Vote Alert” to members of the U.S. House, March 2, 2021. Link; and U.S. Chamber, “Key Vote Alert” to members of the U.S. Senate, April 13, 2021. Link.

^[60] Jane Mayer, “Inside the Koch-Backed Effort to Block the Largest Election-Reform Bill in Half a Century,” New Yorker, March 29, 2021. Link. Polling released to the public confirms that the vast majority of Americans — across the political spectrum — support the reforms contained in both the For The People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 4). See Newsweek, “As GOP Opposes H.R. 1, Poll Finds Majority of Republicans Support Election Reform Bill,” February 25, 2021

^[61] Relevant section of the bill. For a summary see Brennan Center’s annotated guide to the For The People Act, Subtitle B (Congressional Elections), Part 2 – Small Donor Financing. Link.

^[62] Glenn Kessler, Fact Checker, “ Washington Post, March 18, 2019. Link. The text of the relevant section is here. It should also be pointed out that the Chamber is hardly in the position to be lecturing members of Congress about how taxpayer funds are used, given how many of its members have paid little to no taxes in recent years. See Citizens for Tax Justice’s analysis for 2018 and 2020. A positive result of this provision is that it would create a kind of virtuous circle that rewards candidates for being less dependent upon wealthy individuals and companies for the funds needed to run a viable campaign, and therefore less beholden to them once they are in office, making them more likely to work to ensure that laws holding companies accountable are strongly enforced.

^[63] Although the Chamber does not disclose its members, we were able to determine that well over half of the top corporate contributors to state sponsors of anti-voter legislation are members of the Chamber. To check specific companies see companies own reports to shareholders, the Public Citizen 2017 “Chamber of Secrets” report, and the Chamber’s current and past list of members of its board of directors. Additional evidence of membership can be deduced from participation in the Chamber’s overseas business councils, as well as awards and news references by the Chamber’s Foundation.

^[64] Scott Horsley, “Companies Quit the U.S. Chamber Over Climate Policy,” All Things Considered (NPR), October 6, 2009. Link. Although Exelon announced it would also leave the Chamber over its climate policy, the company gave the Chamber $250,000 in 2017. Link. In 2020, a new student-led campaign called Change the Chamber was launched to pressure the Chamber and calling on members companies such to either quit the Chamber or push it to end is pro-fossil fuel lobbying. See Sharon Kelly, “After Calling for Climate Action, US Chamber of Commerce Pushes Pro-Fossil Fuel Agenda,” DeSmogBlog, September 29, 2020.

^[65] U.S. Chamber of Commerce, “Executive Leadership: Board of Directors” (Link). Full list of board members: Link. A list of Chamber board members and other member companies, indicating which endorsed the “We Stand for Democracy” statement can be found here.

^[66] A partial list of U.S. Chamber members can be found here.

^[67] Constitutional scholars point out that the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that political speech receives the maximum protection under the First Amendment. See, e.g., Grace Nosek, The Fossil Fuel Industry’s Push to Target Climate Protesters in the U.S., 38 Pace Envtl. L. Review 53, esp. Footnote 23. Link. As Nosek points out, whether or not specific legislation violates the First Amendment, “taken together,” the pattern of legislation and related activities, including lawsuits against protesters and their supporters “threatens to profoundly chill free speech and democratic engagement in a critical moment for climate action. Indeed, some have argued that the intent behind many of these tactics is the unconstitutional deterrence of climate protest.”

^[68] “U.S. Current Trend: New Wave of Legislation Targeting Black Lives Matter Protesters“ International Center for Not-For-Profit Law, January 15, 2021. Link.

^[69] Brennan Center for Justice, “Anti-Protest Laws Threaten Indigenous and Climate Movements,” March 21, 2021. Link. Other states where the legislation was supported by the industry include West Virginia, Louisiana and Minnesota. See Gabrielle Colchete and Basav Sen, “Muzzling Dissent: How Corporate Influence Over Politics Has Fueled Anti-Protest Laws,” Institute for Policy Studies, October 2020. Link. For analysis of specific anti-protest legislation see the International Center for Non-For-Profit Law anti-protest tracker.

^[70] See International Center for Not-For-Profit Law (ICNL), “U.S. Current Trend: New Wave of Legislation Targeting Black Lives Matter Protesters.” (link)

^[71] As of April 30, 2021, three federal and 94 state anti-protest bills have been introduced since May 2020. Six of the state bills were enacted into law. See ICNL bill tracker.

^[72] Erica Chenoweth and Jeremy Pressman, “This summer’s Black Lives Matter protesters were overwhelmingly peaceful, our research finds; Police and counterprotesters sometimes started violence,” Washington Post, October 10, 2020. Link.

^[73] Nicole Narea, “Why progressives are lining up against new criminal penalties for domestic terrorism,” Vox March 22, 2021. Link; Robert O’Harrow et al., “The rise of domestic extremism in America,” Washington Post, April 13, 2021. Link.

^[74] Examples include Alabama H.B. 445; Florida H.B. 1; Tennessee S.B. 451; Wisconsin S.B. 296. Detailed analysis of these and other bills can be found on the ICNL tracker.

^[75] See Indiana General Assembly digest of the bill. Link.

^[76] ICNL, Analysis of Indiana H.B. 1205. Link.

^[77] See, for example, International Center for Not-For-Profit-Law, “Critical Infrastructure Bills: Targeting Protesters Through Extreme Penalties,” 2019. Link.

^[78] Alabama 94 allows protesters who disrupt a public speech while committing another infraction (e.g. trespassing) to be charged with a Class B felony, punishable by up to 20 years in prison. Link.

^[79] Sam Levin and Will Parrish, “Keystone XL: Police discussed stopping anti-pipeline activists ‘by any means’,” The Guardian, November 25, 2019. Link; Will Parish and Jason Wilson, “Revealed: anti-terror center helped police track environmental activists,” The Guardian, October 2, 2019. Link.

^[80] Jack Evans et al., “DeSantis’ protest bill questioned by Tampa Bay’s top cops, not just ‘far left’,” Tampa Bay Times, September 23, 2020. Link.

^[81] See summary description of H.B. 1/S.B. 484, ICNL anti-protest bill tracker. Link.

^[82] Nancy Metayer, “Gov. Ron DeSantis’ H.B. 1 is un-American,” Florida Politics, March 10, 2021. Link.

^[83] Florida News Service, “Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, AG and sheriff sued over protest crackdown by civil rights attorneys,” April 21, 2021. Link.

^[84] Eileen Kelly, “Sheriff’s Office backs away from anti-riot law; Executive director worried that civil rights could be violated,” South Florida Sun-Sentinel, April 23, 2021. Link.

^[85] Brian Kahn, “Montana Is About to Become the Most Dangerous Place in America to Protest Fossil Fuels,” Gizmodo, April 30, 2021. Link. Bill text is available here. See analysis by ICNL Link.

^[86] See ICNL analysis of H.B. 1295, available here.

^[87] See ICNL analysis of S.B. 198, available here.

^[88] See ICNL analysis of H.B. 321, available here. .

^[89] Link.

^[90] ICNL bill tracker. Link.

^[91] Grace Nosek, The Fossil Fuel Industry’s Push to Target Climate Protesters in the U.S., 38 Pace Envtl. L. Review 53, page 70. Link.

^[92] See ICNL bill tracker description for Indiana S.B.198. Link.

^[93] Grace Hauck, “Cars have hit demonstrators 104 times since George Floyd protests began,” USA Today, September 27, 2020 (Updated). Link.

^[94] Florida H.B. 1/S.B. 484, the bill enacted into law and signed by Gov. DeSantis on April 19, 2021, “creates a new affirmative defense in civil lawsuits for personal injury, death, or property damage, such that a defendant could avoid liability by establishing that the injury, death, or damage they committed “arose from” conduct by someone “acting in furtherance of a riot.” Oklahoma H.B. 1674, which was enacted into law, shields drivers from civil or criminal liability who injure or kill someone while “fleeing from a riot,” as long as they did so “unintentionally,” were “exercising due care,” and held a “reasonable belief” that they needed to flee to protect themselves. Another bill introduced in Florida (S.B. 1096/H.B. 1419) would have eliminated driver liability for hitting protesters. In Iowa, SF 534: would provide immunity from civil liability for drivers who injures someone who is participating in a “protest, demonstration, riot, or unlawful assembly,” engaging in “disorderly conduct,” and blocking traffic, as long as the driver was exercising “due care” and the protester did not have a permit to be in the street. A similar bill (HF 251) was introduced in the Iowa House. As of this writing, similar driver immunity bills are pending in Missouri (S.B. 66; H.B. 56), Nevada (AB 168), Tennessee (H.B. 513/S.B. 843) and Washington State (S.B. 5456; S.B. 5310). Others have been introduced and defeated or withdrawn in Mississippi (S.B. 2374), Kentucky (H.B. 53), North Dakota (H.B. 1203) and other states. See ICNL anti-protest bill tracker. Link

^[95] Rosanna Smart et al., “The Science of Gun Policy,” RAND Corporation, 2020. Link

^[96] “‘Open Season’: Heather Heyer’s Mother Slams New Laws Giving Immunity to Drivers Who Hit Protesters,” Democracy Now, April 26, 2021. Link.

^[97] “U.S. Downgraded as Civic Freedoms Deteriorate,” CIVICUS, December 8, 2020. Link.

^[98] Former UN Special Rapporteur, “Country Visit: United States of America,” 2016. Link.

^[99] For the full list of 100 companies, see “2021 Anti-Protest Bills: Funding to Legislative Sponsors” (Google sheet). Contributions were limited to the most recent election cycle (2019-2020). A more detailed explanation of the methodology used can be found here.

^[100] Berkshire Hathaway has a few subsidiaries that are heavily involved with fossil fuels, including utilities — MidAmerican, Pacificorp, NV Energy. BNSF Railway (another subsidiary) hauls coal, and the company is also invested in other fossil fuel companies.

^[101] NextEra not only uses fossil fuels for their generation fleet, but they are an investor in the Mountain Valley Pipeline.

^[102] For a detailed description, chronology and list of recently introduced “critical infrastructure” bills, along with a bibliography of media reports and & references, see Connor Gibson, “State Bills to Criminalize Peaceful Protest of Oil & Gas “Critical Infrastructure,” PolluterWatch (Greenpeace), updated February 23, 2021. Link.

^[103] Matea Gold, “Ready for a surprise? Money DOES equal access in Washington,” Washington Post, March 11, 2014. Link.

^[104] Lee Drutman, The Business of America is Lobbying, Oxford University Press, 2015.

^[105] Connor Gibson, “Ranking Companies Lobbying for State Anti-Protest Laws, 2017-2021” Link.

^[106] https://www.stopline3.org/

^[107] Will Parrish and Alleen Brown, “How Police, Private Security, and Energy Companies are Preparing for a New Pipeline Standoff,” The Intercept, 1/30/19. Link. For more about anti-protest bills in Minnesota, including related lobbying by Enbridge, see PolluterWatch page on anti-protest bills in Minnesota. Link.

^[108] Mike Hughlett, “Proposed Minnesota law targets those who train or recruit protesters who damage ‘critical infrastructure’,” Star Tribune, April 7, 2018. Link. Information about MN 1558 can be found on the state legislature’s website. Link.

^[109] Gabrielle Colchete and Basav Sen, “Muzzling Dissent: How Corporate Influence Over Politics Has Fueled Anti-Protest Laws,” Institute for Policy Studies, October 2020. Link Alleen Brown and Will Parrish, New Arrests Under New Anti-Protest Law Spotlight Risks That Off-Duty Cops Pose to Pipeline Opponents,” The Intercept, August 22, 2018. Link.

^[110] David Hasemyer, “Marathon Reaches Deal with Investors on Human Rights. Standing Rock Hoped for More.” Inside Climate News, February 13, 2018. Link.

^[111] Drew Costley, “The blackest city in the US is facing an environmental justice nightmare,” The Guardian, January 9, 2020. Link.

^[112] Erin Cox and Gregory S. Schneider, “Energy companies abandon long-delayed Atlantic Coast Pipeline,” Washington Post, June 5, 2020. Link.

^[113] Mark Heffinger, “TRANSCANADA CALLS NEBRASKA RANCHERS AGRESSIVE AND ABUSIVE, TALKS OF TERRORISM“ Bold Nebraska, June 11, 2013. Link.

^[114] Phil McKenna, “South Dakota Backs Off Harsh New Protest Law and ‘Riot-Boosting’ Penalties,” Inside Climate News, October 25, 2019. Link.

^[115] Tyler Crowe, “Here’s How Valero’s Management Thinks Trump’s Policies Will Impact The Business,” Motley Fool, February 1, 2017. Link.

^[116] Tim Donaghy, “Valero Energy: Blocking Climate Solutions, Taking Subsidies,” Greenpeace, September 21, 2020. Link.

^[117] The emails can be seen here. More about the bill can be found on PolluterWatch.

^[118] Connor Gibson, Ranking Companies’ Lobbying for State Anti-Protest Laws, 2017-2021. Link Campaign contributions: See our campaign contributions analysis.

^[119] “Texas — Oil and Gas Infrastructure Bills,” PolluterWatch (Updated March 5, 2020). Link.

^[120] Frank Hopper, “‘Kill the bill! Save the land!’ Native protectors disrupt Texas legislature,” Indian Country Today, May 10, 2019. Link.

^[121] David Voorman, Senior Policy Analyst for Free Speech and Peace, Americans for Prosperity, “‘Anti-Riot’ Measures Open a Wide Door to Censorship,” Newsweek, March 9, 2021. Link. Text of the bill is here.

^[122] Jennifer A. Dlouhy, “Industry Flexes Muscle In States To Criminalize Peaceful Protests,” Insurance Journal, August 20, 2019. Link.

^[123] “Koch Industries leads industry effort to kill 9/11 legislation,” August 24, 2011.

^[124] “Preventing Chemical Disasters,” Greenpeace. Link.

^[125] John Aloysius Farrell et al., “Since 9/11, Koch Industries Has Fought Against Tougher Government Rules on Chemical Plants,” Center for Public Integrity, May 19, 2014 (updated). Link.

^[126] Rick Hind and Mae Stevens (Greenpeace) Testimony before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, March 3, 2010. Link.

^[127] See DeSmogBlog profile of AFPM. Members of AFPM include Koch Industries, Marathon Petroleum, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Valero.

^[128] See the “Trade Association Lobbying” (second tab) in the anti-protest lobbying spreadsheet.

^[129] Lee Fang, “Oil Lobbyist Touts Success in Criminalizing Pipeline Protests, Leaked Recording Shows,” The Intercept, August 19, 2019. Link

^[130] Gin Armstrong and Derek Seidman, “Fossil Fuel Industry Pollutes Black & Brown Communities While Propping Up Racist Policing,” LittleSis, July 27, 2020. Link. Nina Lakhani, “Revealed: oil giants help fund powerful police groups in top US cities,” Guardian, July 27, 2020. Link. .

^[131] Alleen Brown and Will Parrish, “Recent Arrests Under New Anti-Protest Law Spotlight Risks That Off-Duty Cops Pose to Pipeline Opponents,” The Intercept, August 18, 2018. Link; Karen Savage, “Louisiana Law Enforcement Officers Are Moonlighting for a Controversial Pipeline Company,” The Appeal, August 28, 2018. Link

^[132] Alleen Brown, Will Parrish and Alice Speri, “Dakota Access-Style Policing Moves to Pennsylvania’s Mariner East 2 Pipeline,” The Intercept, June 21, 2017. Link.

^[133] Ohio Senate Bill 33, “ LInk.

^[134] Sarah Lazare and Simon Davis-Cohen, “Fossil Fuel Companies Are Enlisting Police to Crack Down on Protesters,” In These Times, April 16, 2019. Link. Alexander C. Kaufman, “Ohio Quietly Passes a Bill That Could Bankrupt Churches Linked to Fossil Fuel Protests,” Huffington Post, December 19, 2020. Link.

^[135] The Lobbyist was Andrew Huffman. See Polluter Watch.

^[136] For examples go here and here.

^[137] Ifeoma Ajunwa, “Can We Trust Corporate Commitments to Racial Equity?” Forbes, February 23, 2021. Link

^[138] See “Talking About Race,” National Museum of African American History and Culture. Link; Lauren Weber, “Companies Have Promised $35 Billion Toward Racial Justice. Where is the Money Going?” Wall Street Journal, December 21, 2020. Link. For an analysis of recent corporate actions see Earl Fitzhugh et al., “It’s time for a new approach to racial equity,” McKinsey & Company, December 2, 2020. Link.

^[139] For an incomplete list of such companies go here. We know there are many more companies than those on our list since a Conference Board survey of executives found that “only about a quarter of companies publicly announced their PACs’ response to the events of January 6th.” The Conference Board reported that many companies explained that they suspended their contributions out of concern for their reputation. See “Survey: Corporate PACs Took Unprecedented Action by Broadly Suspending Political Contributions Following Capitol Riot,” The Conference Board, February 12, 2021. Link.

^[140] In 2014, two eminent political scientists published the results of an examination of 1,779 cases of proposed changes in federal policy, including 369 in which “mass-based interest groups took a stand,” reaching the conclusion that “majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.” Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens,” Perspectives on Politics , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 564 – 581. Link. This was seven years ago, before the attack on such “features central to democratic governance” described in this report had become the legislative priority of one of America’s two major political parties.

^[141] For a list go here.

^[142] “U.S. Chamber CEO Statement on Presidential Transition, January 12, 2021. Link. The National Association of Manufacturers denounced the “armed thugs” that attacked the Capitol, describing it as “sedition” and calling upon VP Pence to consider invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office. “Manufacturers Call on Armed Thugs to Cease Violence at Capitol,” January 6, 2021. Link

^[143] “Black Executives Call on Corporations to Fight Restrictive Voting Laws,“ Black Economic Alliance, March 31, 2021. Link; “We Stand for Democracy,’ Black Economic Alliance, April 14, 2021. Link.

^[144] They can do this by endorsing Business for Voting Rights’ “Business Letter to Congress in Support of the VRAA.” Link.

^[145] End Citizens United, “New Poll: Overwhelming Majority of Americans Support the For the People Act,” March 2, 2021. Link; Equal Citizens and Data for Progress, “The For The People Act is extremely popular among the American people,” April 27, 2021. Link. In addition to issuing their own statement of support, companies can express support for the For The People Act (H.R. 1/S. 1) by endorsing the statement of support sponsored by the Declaration for American Democracy (DFAD) coalition.Link, and 2) By joining Fair Fight Action’s call to ”Endorse/Speak Out to Support S1 and VRAA” by publicly releasing a statement of support for these two bills, addressed to members of Congress. Link.

^[146] “Corporate Leaders Urged to Wade Into Debates Over Voting Laws,” April 12, 2021. Link.

^[147] The Voting Rights Lab’s legislative bill tracker includes a comprehensive list of state anti-voter bills, along with bill sponsors and status. Link. The Brennan Center’s State Voting Bills Tracker is another useful source. Link. .

^[148] Karl Evers-Hillstrom, “Impact of corporate PAC promises may be limited,” Center for Responsive Politics, January 14, 2021. Link.

^[149] Anna Massoglia, “Corporations Rethinking PACs Leave the Door to ‘dark money’ open,” Center for Responsive Politics, January 15, 2021. Link.

^[150] Ephrat Livni, Lauren Hirsch and Andrew Ross Sorkin, “Money in Politics, One Month Later,” New York Times, February 6, 2021. Link.For a detailed description of specific forms of corporate political spending see the Center for Political Accountability, CPA-Zicklin Index. Link.

^[151] “50+ Groups Sign Open Letter to Corporate America,” Public Citizen, January 27, 2021. Link

^[152] “H.R. 1 — For The People Act: Impact of Select H.R.1 Policy Changes on Black and Brown Political Power” (powerpoint), Demos. Link.

^[153] The For the People Act includes provisions introduced in the DISCLOSE Act of 2019. Link.

^[154] See CPA-Wharton-Zicklin “Model Corporate Code of Conduct for Political Spending.” Link

^[155] Elizabeth Hira,” The For The People Act is America’s Next Great Civil Rights Bill,” Brennan Center for Justice, March 1, 2021. Link.

^[156] US Chamber, “Executive Leadership: Board of Directors.” Link. U.S. Chamber of Commerce, “Board of Directors,” accessed on April 20, 2021. Link. “Other companies that signed the statement and appear to be U.S. Chamber of Commerce members include Facebook, Target, General Motors, Johnson & Johnson, and Merck, according to a reporter for Sludge. See Donald Shaw, “These Companies Claim to Support Expanding Voting Rights. Their Actions Say Otherwise,” Sludge, April 14, 2021. Link.

^[157] A list of Chamber members indicating which signed the statement is available here.

^[158] State and regional chambers of commerce have done in at least six states. See “Trade Association Lobbying” in the Greenpeace anti-protest lobbying spreadsheet. Link.